00hernando Poli Bor

Separation of Church & State
The Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd) issued Department Order (DO) No.
35 providing guidelines for teaching good manners and right conduct in all primary
educational institutions. As part of the materials to be used during the sessions, the
handbook for instructors contains a chapter on "Values from Religious Traditions and
Indigenous Cultures". The DepEd will provide the handbooks, but educational institutions
shall be free to adapt the contents of the handbook in accordance with their respective
mission and vision.
Attendance at the sessions shall be compulsory for all students. Concerned parents and
teachers questioned DO No. 35 before the Supreme Court as being violative of the
establishment clause and their primary right and duty to rear their children. Are the parents
and teachers correct? Explain Briefly.
Suggested Answer:
The parents and teachers are not correct. The Department Order No. 35 does not violate
the Establishment Clause on the Separation of Church and State. There is also no violation
of their right and duty to rear their children.
The DepEd Order 35 deals with teaching good manners and right conduct.
It sponsors no religion nor favor any religion against other religions. Said Order is strictly
neutral in affairs among religious groups.
The Separation of Church and State involves two (2) Clauses;

1. Establishment Clause
- Prohibits the State from sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as
against other religions. It mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious
groups;
2. Free Exercise Clause
- The State cannot prohibit anyone from freely choosing his religion;
Benevolent Neutrality recognizes that Religion plays an important role in the public life;
1. Strict Separation
- To protect the State from the Church and the State's hostility towards religion
allows no interaction between the two;
2. Strict Neutrality
- The "wall of separation" does not require the State to be Religion's adversary;
Unreasonable Search & Seizure (Checkpoint - Probable Cause)
A public transport bus was stopped by the police at a checkpoint. All male passengers were
asked to disembark while all female passengers were requested to remain seated. Paul, a
police officer, then boarded the bus and upon cursory inspection, noticed suspicious bulging
black bag at the rear of the bus. Paul lifted the bag and found it to be heavy for its size.
Severino, the owner of the bag and a non-paying passenger, consented to have it opened
and it was revealed that the bag contained a firearm and a live grenade. When Severino
failed to produce proof of his authority to carry firearms and explosives, he was arrested and
eventually charged with Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives. Severino now
contends that the search was unreasonable and unconstitutional as it was done without a
search warrant. Is Severino correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Severino is correct. The Checkpoint was established with no Probable Cause. There
were no suspicious circumstances to validly set-up a lawful Checkpoint. The Search, with
no Warrant, at an Unlawful Checkpoint, violated Severino's constitutional Right against
unreasonable Search.
A warrantless Search and subsequent Arrest of the Accused were illegal because there was
no sufficient and reasonable ground to believe that Pua and Lee had committed a crime at
the point of search and arrest. The alleged TIPS received is "hearsay Information that
cannot bring about Probable Cause.
Preliminary Investigation
Right to Counsel - Waiver
Ricardo, a third-year law student, was subjected to custodial investigation for the crime of
Rape. He was duly informed by the police of his right to remain silent and his right to have
counsel of his choice if he could afford one, and if not, he could be provided with one.
Ricardo proudly informed the arresting officer that he is perfectly aware of his rights, being a
law student, and that he is voluntarily waiving them. He then proceeded to issue a written
statement truthfully detailing his participation in the crime of Rape. During trial, his written
statement was presented as the primary evidence of his guilt. Atty. Alexander, counsel for
Ricardo, promptly and vociferously objected to the presentation and admissibility of his
written statement on the ground that Ricardo executed it without assistance of counsel. Is
the objection justified and tenable? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Atty. Alexander's objection is justified and tenable. Ricardo's waiver of his Right to Counsel,
as Accused in the custodial investigation, can be waived only in writing and in the presence
of his Counsel.
There is no showing that Ricardo's Waiver was made in writing and that his Counsel, Atty.
Alexander was present when he made his written waiver. His written statement about his
participation in the rape is not admissible in evidence for absence of Counsel;
Unreasonable Search & Seizure

WORK-Related Misconduct
For purposes of the investigation of work-related misconduct, the Presidential Management

Staff (PMS), searched the office computer of its employee, Zenaida, without the consent of
the latter and without a search warrant. The personal files of Zenaida stored in the
computer, which were seized during the search, were eventually used by the PMS as
evidence of misconduct. Zenaida was accordingly dismissed from service. Zenaida now
comes to you for advice claiming that the search was unconstitutional for being violative of
her right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Provide your
legal advice with reasons.
Suggested Answer:
The search of Zenaida's computer, with no search warrant and without her Consent, did not
violate her Privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Search by a government Employer of an Employee's Office is justified at inception when

there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the Employee
is guilty of work-related misconduct
Eminent Domain - Expropriation

Just Compensation
The Civil Service Commission pursued the Search in its capacity as a government
Employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving work-
related misconduct, one of the circumstances exempted from the Warrant requirement..
The property of Anne was expropriated by the government for public use more than ten
years ago without proper expropriation proceedings and without payment of just
compensation. Since then, the value of the Philippine peso has greatly depreciated, while
the inflation rate has substantially increased. Anne now contends that in the interest of
justice and fair play, the inflation rate and the depreciated value of the peso should be taken
into consideration in the computation and payment of her long-delayed just compensation.
Is Anne correct? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer
Yes, Anna is correct on the depreciated value of the Philippine Peso and the Inflation Rate
in giving her Just Compensation for her expropriated Property.
She is entitled to receive Interest Income on the
Compensation due to her when government took over her property until full compensation is
paid. Her Interest Earnings will cover all the Incomes she deserves to earn to include the
appreciation of her property value arising from the Peso depreciation and the Inflation Rate.
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Just compensation in expropriation cases is " the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator. The true measure of JUST Compensation is the
owner's loss. The word 'just' modifies the word 'compensation' that the equivalent to be
given for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample.

00hernando Poli Bor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

00hernando Poli Bor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

00hernando Poli Bor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Separation of Church & State

The Separation of Church and State involves two (2) Clauses;

Unreasonable Search & Seizure

For purposes of the investigation of work-related misconduct, the Presidential Management

Search by a government Employer of an Employee's Office is justified at inception when

Eminent Domain - Expropriation

You might also like